As the original Moderation page has developed a bug so that permalinks no longer navigate to the appropriate comment, I thought I’d put up a page for continuing discussion on moderating issues. The Rules can be found there so anyone with an issue should check that they are familiar with them.
26th June 2015: the bug has now affected this page so there is now a new Moderation Issues page here.
keiths:
SophistiCat:
You’ll also get less interesting discussion and fewer interesting participants by beefing up the moderation. As Patrick points out, intrusive moderation often causes sites to stagnate.
Heavier moderation doesn’t eliminate acrimony, and arguably increases it. Witness the fallout over Neil’s censorship fiasco.
As for trash, I’ll grant that there’s more of that with lighter moderation, but it is easy to handle. Just take responsibility, as a reader, for how you react to it. If you find it hard to deal with, then skip over it. Don’t force censorship on all of us merely because you personally regard certain comments as distasteful.
First, I’d like to request ‘our own’ be removed from the title of this thread. You don’t ‘own’ me and I am not ‘yours.’ The condescension is not appreciated and is easily corrected by removing those 2 words (after which this post can be sent to Sandbox). Thanks.
Gregory,
Fair point. Done.
Gregory,
Calling you “our own Gregory” was not condescension, just an acknowledgment of the fact that you are a regular commenter here.
Not intended, but open to that interpretation.
Yes, that was my reading of it.
Still, on the face of it, Gregory’s requested change seemed reasonable. If Alan had not made the change, I would have waited a couple of hours to give you time to make the change. And, if not, I would have done what Alan did.
Sometimes a little common sense can overrule the principle of not changing content. (I also occasionally fix obviously broken links and improperly closed html tags such as blockquotes).
Neil,
I’m not objecting to the change, just explaining to Gregory that the original wording was not intended as condescension.
Thanks to Keiths for suggesting a fix to the page bug. I’ve changed the number of comments per page back to 50 and the links now seem to work OK.
Alan,
I wasn’t suggesting a fix, just pointing out what the problem is.
If you change the number of comments per page to 50, that will break links to comments made after the change to 100, won’t it?
OK but your comment suggested the problem, thus the fix. Any problems now?
Alan,
Yes. I checked this old thread, and the links are broken because they assume 100 comments per page.
It seems like you’re stuck unless you can get WordPress to modify all of the old links to conform to the 50 comments per page standard.
Alan,
Have you abandoned your new policy already?
keiths,
I’m inclined to say that there was a clear violation in this case.
Neil,
You missed the part where Alan said “clear violation (see list above)”. The list he was referring to: spam, porn, hate speech.
It was a clesr violation of the prime directive.
Sigh.
Alan’s statement, yet again, with bolding added:
P.S. Petrushka, what happened to
?
I take the list to be illustrative rather than exhaustive.
Neil,
That would defeat the entire purpose of Alan’s proposal. Read his paragraph again.
It’s not my site, and I don’t make the rules.
petrushka,
But it’s quite interesting that someone who says “the less moderation the better” is so eager to weigh in on whether certain comments “qualify for guano”.
Well, let’s work through the example.
Did a commenter flag a comment?
Yes.
Did I agree with the commenter’s suggestion that a comment broke Lizzie’s rules.
Yes.
What’s the problem? One could hardly argue the comment does not break Lizzie’s rules.
You confirmed yourself that the comment was guano material.Remember Lizzie’s mission statement?
This is a tough objective but more likely to be achieved through a genuine attempt at communication than through unkind speculation about other commenters’ motives for posting or not posting comments.
You should not take the moving of a comment as any kind of general censure.
Need I say more?
ETA
Apologies for incorrect statement. Should have said “You did not dispute the comment was guano material.”
keiths:
Alan:
Was that commenter the “injured party”? No.
What was your new policy?
Patrick and I both thought that was a great idea. Why not give your new policy a chance? Why change it so soon?
keiths,
“Injured party” does not necessarily mean the object of a rule-violating comment.
Test one – someone objects to a comment.
Test two – an admin assesses whether the objection is valid.
Oh and let me mention again that it would be most acceptable if everyone could try the trick of self-moderation. Do you intend to insult or goad another person? Then it’s probably better not to push the “post comment” button before editing.
@ keiths
I value your contributions here. I am non-plussed by your tendency to get under the skin of other commenters. I admit that has included me and for perhaps allowing myself to be influenced by that irritation I apologize.
We seem to have different a different perspective over whether the attempt to maintain a venue that is welcoming enough to allow participation of people with widely-differing views is worthwhile.
Alan:
In context, it’s pretty clear that you did mean the object of the comment, not the bystanders.
I had just written this:
You replied:
And seriously, Alan — would you really argue that petrushka was “injured” by reading a comment directed at William?
As I said when you proposed the new policy:
If third party bystanders can request that comments be Guano’ed, then we’re pretty much back to the old system.
I think your new system deserves a chance.
Alan,
I do tend to get under the skin of particular commenters at times, and I am quite conscious of that fact. If you take a careful look at those cases, you’ll find a common thread. In each case I am holding the commenter responsible for something they have written or done, and they don’t like it.
The most recent example was in the Scruton thread, where you made an understandable mistake but were so loathe to admit it that you tried to fob it off on me.
Now if you and I were coworkers, neighbors, in-laws, or something like that, then I wouldn’t have pursued it. In those contexts the conflict wouldn’t be worth it. Better to just drop it. But we are at The Skeptical Zone, where ideas are the entire point, and the issue we were discussing was not some quibble, but an important application of the concept of kin selection. Under those circumstances I saw no reason to placate you by dishonestly pretending that you were right.
If I point out a mistake of yours, it doesn’t mean that I’m out to get you or that I dislike you. (We’ve actually known each other online for almost a decade, and I have fond memories of the early days of UD, when you were posting as ‘Renard’). It just means that I’m doing what I came to TSZ to do: discuss and debate ideas.
I made a similar point to hotshoe:
So yes, I am aware that it can be uncomfortable for people to be held responsible for their statements and actions. Because of that, I make an extra effort to take responsibility for my own statements and actions, including my mistakes, and to be fair in my criticisms of others’ views..
But that’s not what you are doing. Rather, you are often holding people responsible for your misunderstanding of their statements. There’s a strange literalism there, a blindness to the subtleties of language. I sometimes wonder whether I am seeing something like Asperger’s.
Nobody here makes me “uncomfortable” in the least. I recently pointed out violations of the rules here for a short period just to make a point about the “moderation” (to my satisfaction) and moved on.
I know what I’m getting into whenever I post here, especially the kind of things that I post about.
I’ve been thrown in jail and have had my family threatened by authorities for expressing certain views that ran counter to the mainstream narrative. Feet-stamping, biased moderation, thinly-veiled personal insults and motive-mongering by a handful of people on an internet forum is a source of amusement in my life, not discomfort.
Nothing wrong with that. I for one have a perfectly simple interface. Moreover, if somebody is talking to me (gods forbid), then obviously they want to tell me something. If they then fail to convey to me the meaning of what they need me to know, then they’re at fault for not correctly addressing my interface.
Having a contract-first approach to interpersonal communications makes life so much quieter.
Really? Personally, I prefer sitting round the barbecue with a couple of friends and some beer. Or watching a nice action flick, where the guy gets the girl in the end, so that I may walk away with the satisfaction of knowing that, well, at least somebody got her.
If you ever do that to me, I’ll pull funny faces at you, mark my words.
Well, I didn’t say it was my primary source of amusement. Or even in the top ten.
Top eleven isn’t bad. It’s still a contender. Beats clipping toenails anyway, hm?
Good grief! I think before going from stage one “you made a mistake” to “you should apologise” you need to explain to me stage two. What was my mistake? You have yet to explain. I’ll look for your response on the appropriate thread.
You’re going to get the same uneven moderation as anyone else, whether you like it or not! 🙂
I am a moderator on another site. I have seen uneven and quirky moderation, and I’ve discussed it with other moderators.
There is no such thing as perfect moderation. Just reasonable rules enforced without censoring reasoned opinions.
As much s I dislike heavy-handed moderation, I despise whining about moderation. People who whine about moderation are almost always the ones who also make discussions personal.
Screw it. Address the issues and move on.
Even UD would be acceptable if they didn’t ban people. Barely acceptable, but tolerable.
That’s my experience too. I’ve informed Lizzie that I would rather relinquish moderating duties. As an aside I can’t rule out the possibility of a visit from our illustrious leader in the near future. 🙂
You have been warned!
Please don’t leave. There’s more to moderating than annoying posters. We added mods because the site needs them just to run.
No intention of leaving. I enjoy the discourse here. I’m happy to do the housekeeping too. There’s a scene in Lean’s Lawrence of Arabia where Lawrence shoots Gasim and suspects that he might grow to enjoy the experience. I don’t want to become a moderating megalomaniac. 😉
ETA U => W
If I were a moderator, I’d edit everybody’s posts so that everybody said nice things to each other all the time. Then people’d have to call each other up to whine, and I’d make a movie out of it, and it’d be hilarious and become a blockbuster overnight, and I’d be rich and buy a yacht. A blue one.
I’ve always wanted a blue yacht.
Hmmmm. That sounds a lot like a real script, only better.
Neil:
That’s interesting. Could you link to a specific example?
I have exactly that impression of you. For example, a small portion of an exchange in which you insisted that computers don’t compute:
Neil:
keiths:
Anyway, please do link to an example of my “blindness to the subtleties of language”. I would hate to be missing subtle linguistic cues.
I would say we have a nice specimen in the box, right here.
keiths:
Gralgrathor:
And when you do, rest assured that I will take it like a man. I won’t be calling for your funny faces to be Guano’ed.
petrushka,
Could you elaborate?
Lighten up, Keith. This is a blog. The purpose is exchange of ideas. If you want arguments try the argument clinic.
I tried that. Once was enough.
Alan,
Including debate. You do it all the time, Alan, just like the rest of us.
petrushka,
keiths:
petrushka:
Make a claim, and then refuse to take responsibility for backing it up.